The more the competition for a certain product or service space, the better these products or services have to be for users to switch to them. So the higher the competition, the better the products. Higher the competition, happier the users💜 So to get more competition, we need: 1️⃣ Barrier to entry shall be easy and open to anyone. 2️⃣ There shall be no "free lunch" in a way, that companies can get a lot of money for nothing. Money shall only be earnable by work. So no money printing, and no zombie companies (bigger costs then income -> these shall die to release capital to support better products.) 3️⃣ Open-sourcing: if someone invents something, he shall share it, so that others can improve on it. 4️⃣ Free market: capital shall be allocatable efficiently. Capital shall go there, where they create useful products. If you want better products, you shall work on increasing competition. If you want to increase competition, you can concentrate on any of these areas, or all of them. #economy #freemarket #opensource #foss #plebchain

The less the friction to innovate, the more people will innovate. The more people will innovate, the better will be for consumers, and for us all generally.

So interesting to me that YT allows WW3 titled videos. Is it because at the moment: Engagement farming >> decreasing social unrest? I mean compared to other type of contents... Also funny for me, not funny but nah, that Instagram deletes sexual education profiles, but allows people "putting their things out". Double standards... Open-source free world for the win!

Good morning! ✅️ Coffee ✅️ Language learning Let's crush this day people! Manage your day, or your day will manage you!

The best way to not fail is to not play. The best way to succeed is to fail the most. Not every trial will succeed. But a few will. So if you want to succeed a lot, you have to be prepared to fail.

Never...

If we think for a moment, that Keynesian economics try to solve a real problem, I think the idea behind it is the following. Market cycles are given. We have seasons, and you have different needs e.g. for different seasons. Also there are the natural catastrophes, that influences or creates new cycles. Also we could find many more reasons to have cycles. Even human life has cycles. So let's accept this for a moment, that with or without Keynesian economics, we have cycles and these creates economic cycles. Cycles of boom and bust. The argument behind keynesian economics could be to ease these cycles. To decrease the severity of the storm with the price of decreasing the upside part. So to have less severe downturn in return for having less upturns. I think this would be an argument for Keynesian economics from the FED or from whomever. But the reality is the opposite. Somehow the possibility of printing money is not easing the downturns, but increasing artificially the upside, that leads to more severe downside. So seemingly it acts totally the opposite way then it intends to be used. In extra, it also increases the wealth gap. So all in all, does it make sense to USE a tool, that could be used for good things, that is eventually happen to be used wrongly and cause bigger issues then there were? $Boost

$Boost Price and price discovery can be a great driver. In a free market, price is a signal, is a way of communication. If the price of something goes up, it can mean 2 things. Either the demand increased, or the supply decreased. How would a market react to an increasing price? The user of the product will be incentivized by the higher price to decrease back its spending, because it decreases his profit. What he can do: * use less of it -> will decrease demand * try to replace -> will decrease demand So we can say, that from user side, the reaction will be decreasing the demand, because it is too expensive. And as the demand decreases, the price of the product will go down. The manufacturer of the product sees that it has a higher price, so he will want to sell more of it (micro-macro economy 101). What he can do: * make more of it -> increase supply * make replacement products -> decrease demand/increase supply on something else. So from the manufacturer side, the reaction will be increasing demand a.k.a selling moarrr. And as the supply grow, the price will decrease. Of course these things does not happen in seconds, but both buyers and sellers are incentivized to act quickly otherwise their profit decreases and they will have to tighten their belts. We can say that this is an efficient process, because everyone acting in their own interest influences the other participants positively. In this logic, price acts as a signal to both sellers and buyers that they need some action. Also in such a system, the buyers are voting on the products with their money. If there is a great demand on a product, it means people want more of it, so the sellers and any participant can know in the market, that it could make sense to manufacture that product. And as more companies start to manufacture it, the price will go down, because supply increases, but demand not. In this regard money as a signal, can be thought as a vote. But let's imagine a hypothetical scenario, where I can create money. If I can create money, I can decide into which product I put money to, so I can skew the markets voting. Because if I buy from that money certain products, I can increase the demand for it, which will increase its price. This way, it may seem to the market participants that this product is in demand and they start to manufacture it, but when the supply increases, the demand is already gone (the money I gave disappeared), so that company wasted a lot of money on manufacturing something that will never return it back.

Lead by example!

Ask for forgiveness instead of permission.